Stop Smoking Bans Now!

Boycott Scotts Lawn Care Products

2006-12-07T23:43:00.000-06:00

Boycott Scotts Lawn Care Products

If you enjoy eating without paying much attention to diet, enjoy adult beverages on a regular basis, or prefer being a couch potato with exercise being the furthest thing from your mind you must seriously consider boycotting Scotts Lawn Care products. The reason for such a boycott is that Scotts will be eventually firing employees for over-eating, drinking, and not taking care of themselves physically. Their reasoning behind the firings is that employees with “unhealthy life styles” will cost them higher insurance premiums. If doubt this look up on the internet the news story about an employee who was fired because nicotine was found in his blood. This employee was in fact trying to quit smoking, but did smoke a very few cigarettes in his own home---not at work.

Whether you like to smoke or not is totally immaterial. This is not about smoking. It is about your right to live your life as you choose. Without question every individual has the ABSOLUTE GOD GIVEN RIGHT to live our lives exactly as we choose. As long as we do not participate in illegal activities no company should have the right to tell us how we should live.

Today Scotts is going after the smoker. The next group likely to come under attack will be the overeaters. Already, we have New York City telling restaurants what sort of oil they must use in deep frying food. While there is no question that Tran’s fats may not be good for you, it still should be your choice and the restaurateurs’ choice as to what oils they should use. It is up to the marketplace to make these decisions---NOT a bunch of “Big Brother” types sitting in government offices.

Our individual rights are being assaulted from every quarter and it is time for us to fight back against the tyranny of do-gooders. Scotts took away a man’s livelihood with any consideration as to how it might affect the man’s family. Again I must stress that this is not about smoking it is about our right to choose how we wish to live our lives. ORTHO OR TRU-GREEN LAWN SUPPLIES are every bit as good as Scotts and are usually found right next to the Scotts products. If Scotts is able to get away with such tactics other companies will soon fall in line.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE WORKING MAN! JUST REMEMBER YOU COULD BE NEXT ON THEIR HIT LIST! “BOYCOTT SCOTTS LAWN CARE PRODUCTS”

Don Samuels--Legislator with Head in the Sand

2005-05-07T07:47:00.000-05:00

Dear Mr. Samuels,

Thank you for responding to my e-mail. It is unfortunate that your comments are still so obviously predicated on lies, half truths, junk science, misinformation, and surveys designed with predetermined outcomes in mind. Time and again, all of you have been provided with information that has proven the fallacious nature of various "health and medical studies".

Your statement, "I certainly do not want to see another public policy, related to another drug that has disastrous impact on the lives of our citizens. But we were asked to make a decision on the future of a very harmful substance that daily wreaks havoc on many thousands of lives. We considered the evidence outlining the harmfulness of smoking. We considered the possible impact of a ban on businesses. Both options were potentially very harmful. Both options would leave us with angry losers. Both options were imperfect. And virtually every compromise had its own set of victims."
shows a complete lack of understanding of the tobacco issue. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF OF ANY HARM BEING WREAKED ON THOUSANDS OF LIVES DAILY! THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY PROOF NOR IS IT PROBABLE THAT THERE EVER WILL BE!

I will again refer you to various internet sites that have the facts and statistics that prove this to be the case. The three best are The Cato Institute, The Oak Ridge National laboratory and Forces.Org. If you had examined these sites earlier, you would have found the World Health Organization had (much to their chagrin) published a survey on Second Hand Smoke indicating NO SIGNIFICANT association between SHS and health concerns. In fact the only significant figure they did come up with showed that adult children who came from homes with two smoking parents had a 22% better chance of NOT GETTING lung cancer than did adult children coming from non-smoking families. The EPA initially claimed 53,000 deaths a year were caused by SHS--this claim was made even before they did their much flawed META survey. After they did the survey they were forced to drop that number to 3000---which was still another lie. Eventually that number was vacated by a Federal court stipulating the EPA used the figure in a deliberate attempt to harm the legal business activities of the tobacco industry. Billions of dollars have now been squandered in the futile attempt to prove the dangers of smoking and SHS and yet not one single report has been able to do so.

Contrary to the fevered rhetoric of the the anti smoke Nazis, the vast majority of the populace is NOT in favor of smoking bans. Currently the numbers run about 50/50, and it should be understood that as those who are for the ban become aware of the lies and deceit about smoking and SHS, their 50% will erode rather quickly.

Contrary to popular belief, our country is a Republic, not a Democracy. As such, it means that our legislators must acknowledge and bow to the will of the majority. However in doing so, it is their equal obligation to do this without trampling on the rights of the minority. When you violate the rights of the minority you are ultimately violating the rights of all people. The years Germany suffered under the tyranny of the the Third Reich is the immutable proof of this point. The support of any ban is a bad thing, no matter how well intentioned the reason for that ban may be. Over the years our country has had many tyrants who have attempted to ban books, alcohol, specifiable groups of people, and now tobacco. Anyone who supports a ban of any kind, is attendently, a small minded, bigoted, hatemonger whose only joy comes from the superiority they think they have over others. This is especially true of you legislators who feel you may ride roughshod over the property rights and personal freedoms of those very people who voted you into office. All too frequently you bow to the squeaking wheel of special interest groups. In the case of smoking these groups are the ALA, AHA, ACS, CDC, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pfizer, and Glaxo Smith Klein, Pharmaceuticals. Their agenda is not health, it is funding in the case of the "organ organizations." The other groups" interest is the promotion of their smoking cessation nostrums which have been proven to be very ineffective.

I would sincerely hope you you see not only the error of your actions but the utter stupidity of them as well. There will be a day of retribution and that day will be called Election Day.

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert,
Thanks for your passionate input. Your defense of the industry is understandable. I hear from bar owners all the time probably because I have the largest contingency of neighborhood bars, per capita, in the city, in the 3rd ward.

Let me assure you however, that the decision of the council to ban smoking was not done with the caprice or ignorance or arrogance you suggest. We thought long and hard about the pros and cons. We listened to many people, among them, many health professionals, in order to make our decision.

I remain very open to listen to the reports of the impact of the ban. As the council member for that part of the city, most impacted by crime, where lives are lost, almost weekly, in sacrifice to our policies on illegal drugs, I understand what inadequate public policy can wreak on a segment of the economy and community. And I understand the hopelessness generated in the psyches of those who see no way out.

I certainly do not want to see another public policy, related to another drug that has disastrous impact on the lives of our citizens. But we were asked to make a decision on the future of a very harmful substance that daily wreaks havoc on many thousands of lives. We considered the evidence outlining the harmfulness of smoking. We considered the possible impact of a ban on businesses. Both options were potentially very harmful. Both options would leave us with angry losers. Both options were imperfect. And virtually every compromise had its own set of victims.

We chose what we thought was best for the community in the long run and what most people seemed to want. We chose to lead what we saw as the ultimate eventuality; the place our society would arrive at in the near future. The county and state have not been willing to be as assertive.

It could be argued that every decision that has resulted in the reduction of smoking to over time has caused great harm to tobacco farmers and workers and marketers. In some cases lives have long been damaged. The questions are: â€œIs there a point in the fight against tobacco related illness, where we stop or slow down because of the harm the struggle inflicts? Is this that point? Have we passed that point? Is more harm than good being done?â€

Our council came to a conclusion and the fallout is now being experienced. These questions are now being asked, by you and others. I can assure you, there is an army of citizens and activists who are still satisfied with the answers we gave. This does not invalidate the truth of your observations. Indeed, it demonstrates how large the stakes have been and how painful the options in this issue we had taken on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO THE VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:

Please read the following article that concerns the outrageous damage you have visited upon several bar and restaurants. Everyone of you who voted for this ridiculous ban were provided with huge quantities of information showing the damages bans would cause but refused to pay any attention. You were all sent information showing how air filtration systems would improve the quality of air to 150 times better than OSHA requirements, yet your ignored the facts!! You were all sent information showing conclusively the smoking bans were being promoted by out of state interests i.e. pharmaceutical corps. who were looking to gain a larger share of sales of their stop smoking nostrums, yet you chose not to pay attention.

Are you now going to listen to the ALA who wants the ban to run for a year to see what damage will be done by the end of the year. or are you going to finally listen to the business owners,citizens and tax payers WHO KNOW WHAT DAMAGE IS BEING DONE!!! The ALA doesn't pay taxes, they don't contribute to the financial growth of the city, and they don't have any vested interest in the well being of any business in this state. It is about time you started to realize who elected you and why you are in office. In other words get your collective heads out of the sand and correct this colossal mess before any further damage is done.

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans

SEE BELOW SEE BELOW SEE BELOW

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=1439
MN:Bar Owners Hurting.Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For Business.***********Mpls. Bar Owners Say Ban Is Bad For BusinessApril 22, 2005Minneapolis (WCCO) Some establishment owners are claiming a huge drop in business since Minneapolis snuffed out smoking three weeks ago.The smoking ban went in effect March 31 at city bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, but claims of declining business have elected officials thinking about changing the law.City Councilman Dean Zimmerman, co-sponsor of the city smoking ban, got an earful Wednesday at a meeting with about 40 ! Minneapolis establishment owners, including Gabby's owner Jeff Ormond."Everybody is seeing declined sales," Ormond said."We're down between 25 and 30 percent," one bar owner said."We were not prepared for this big chunk of our business to be bitten out of us," said another."We're the ones risking everything, and I'm very upset about it, and we've got to do something about it," another attendee said.Zimmerman was willing to suggest the law could change."There certainly may be opportunity for doing the partial ban that would mimic what's happening in St. Paul," Zimmerman told those in attendance.During Wednesday's lunch rush, there were plenty of open tables at Gabby's in northeast Minneapolis. The bar was practically empty, and owner Ormond was fuming."This is the worst -- wha t you're looking at -- the worst problem," Ormond said, indicating the empty barstools. "Our bar was always semi-full."Ormond said business was down 26 percent since the ban went in effect."Our bartenders' tips are down 50 percent. People come in and have one drink and say 'Hi' and then 'Bye, thank you, gotta go to the bar where we can smoke.'"Before the smoking ban, Ormond had six people serving drinks on a Saturday night. Ormond said he was cutting it to three, because he needed fewer people to serve the declining bar clientele.In all, Ormond crossed 51 work shifts off his schedule, an amount equal to 10 full-time jobs.The American Lung Association told WCCO-TV it wanted the city to give th! e smoking ban a full year. That way, the city could analyze sales receipts and gather hard data on whether businesses were actually hurting.

A Thumbnail History About the Smoking Ban in Minnesota

2005-01-26T03:29:00.000-06:00

January 26 2005

An Open Letter to the Tax Paying Voters of Minnesota

For many years you have been exposed to pyramiding information about the evil of smoking and the danger of Second Hand Smoke (SHS).This information has been provided by organizations such as the American Lung Association, National Cancer Society, American Heart Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization. The self anointed gurus of smoking and SHS, Stanton Glantz and James Repace have also contributed to the fray. For the same number of years this information has been based on misinformation, half truths, lies, junk science, faulty statistics, and computer generated surveys designed to have predetermined outcomes in mind. The funding for the campaign has been provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson & Johnson), the “Legal” drug cartels (Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK), Pfizer, et. al.), and funds that have been in effect extorted from the tobacco industry.

It is time that you, the tax paying and voting public, should know the truth about the anti-smoking campaign. To begin, it must first be understood that it is totally immaterial whether you smoke or not. It is totally immaterial whether you are bothered by the smell of SHS or not. It is totally immaterial whether health concerns are real or not. The only important issues concerning smoking bans are how they affect private property rights, personal freedoms, and the economic impact on businesses, their employees, the state budget, and you the taxpayer.

The history of the anti-smoking campaign first began with a “study” done by the EPA which stated 53,000 deaths a year could be attributed to SHS. The only problem with this is that the EPA had not even done the “study” at the time of their announcement. When they finally did the “study” they had to revise their figure to only 3,000 deaths per year that could be blamed on SHS. However, this figure too was a lie. Although it was ultimately discovered these 3,000 deaths could not be blamed on any specific cause, the number took on a life of its own, especially among the organizations mentioned at the beginning of this article. It took the ruling of Federal Judge William L. Osteen, on July 17, 1998 to officially vacate the findings of the EPA and to point out that this number was being used to deliberately harm the legitimate business activities of the tobacco industry. Osteen further stated, “The EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information…did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning and left significant questions without answers.”
Other procedural issues were also adjudicated by Osteen. Those issues were overturned on appeal, but not the findings concerning the EPA fraud. As to the EPA “study” itself, it must be noted that did not even do a study. What the EPA did do was called a META survey, in which they took several previously done studies and compiled their various data to come up with seriously flawed results.

The WHO also ran the second largest study (short by only 3 people from being the largest) on the effects of SHS. When the study’s final tabulated results did not produce the results they expected, the WHO attempted to bury the entire report. Several reporters from England got wind of this and demanded the WHO to publish the report which they did under great duress. The results of their study showed NO measurable ill effects to be caused by SHS in any of the scenarios they tested. There was one area in which SHS did play a prominent part and the results were astounding. It was determined that adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked, had a 22% better chance of NOT, I repeat NOT, getting lung cancer than did the adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke.

In spite of the lies told by the EPA and the lack of any definitive evidence from the WHO report, the anti-smoke groups have continued with their “Reign of Scare”. For better than 20 years they have piled lie upon lie, deceit upon deceit and have fought to forward their agenda that is anti-business and anti-American. They now tell us that over 400,000 Americans die prematurely every year because of smoking. What they don’t tell you is that virtually all of these smokers who die are at an age where death is a normal occurrence. They summarily conclude that if a person smokes, his death must be premature. While the number of smokers has decreased by about 50% in the past 30 years, the percentage of deaths from lung, heart, or cancer illnesses has remained relatively unchanged. Logic dictates that if there has been a significant decrease in smoking it would stand to reason that there should be some proportionate drop in the percentages of deaths caused by these illnesses. No such decreases have occurred. Would it not therefore stand to reason that smoking and SHS do not have any relationship with these diseases?

In February 2, 2000 the highly respected Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was asked to do a study concerning the effects of SHS on restaurant and bar workers. ORNL is a DOE multi-program research facility managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation. Their results showed the exposure to SHS particulates to be far lower than claimed by the EPA. These numbers were also well below the acceptable limits as established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Among their findings ORNL further stated, “Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses. The threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated. Claims that SHS cause as many as 65,000 early deaths in the US each year have been widely debunked as junk science. All studies failed to find second hand smoke to be a significant health risk.” The fact that this research was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research, who was later identified to be requesting the research for the tobacco industry, brought down the wrath of the anti-smoking establishment. It was their position that any study funded by the tobacco industry had to be full of falsehoods and lies. It mattered not that the ORNL would not risk ruining their outstanding reputation by publishing false information. The anti-smoking groups did not apply the same high standards of integrity to themselves, however.

For many years they have been receiving funding from the many pharmaceuticals that produce various smoking cessation nostrums. While the anti-smoke do-gooders are campaigning for stricter bans and higher cigarette taxes, the pharmaceuticals are reaping ever greater profits. The reason for this is simple. The real cost of cigarettes should be about $10.00 a carton based on former normal tax rates. However, through repressive and outrageous tax increments by government, the cost of cigarettes has risen to figures of between $20.00 and $75.00 per carton. The cost of smoking cessation products have risen as well. Today such products sell from $44.00 to over $90.00 per package.

The main difference is that the cost of cigarettes is tied primarily to taxes, while the cost of pharmaceutical products is tied directly to obscene price gouging and profit taking. Many people who think they should quit will buy these nostrums only to find out they are only changing one nicotine habit for another nicotine habit. The difference between the two products is the means by which nicotine is being delivered. The biggest difference to the states’ legislatures and the tax paying public is that there are no taxes being collected from these “legal” drug cartels. As taxes continue to rise, the base of cigarette purchasers will diminish. Eventually the tax rates will be astronomical, but the amount collected will be miniscule. The pharmaceutical companies will be collecting this “tax money” as profits for themselves.

Smoking bans have been enacted in several states now. In virtually every case restaurant and bar businesses have been hurt substantially. Sales have dropped of dramatically, employees have had to be fired or laid off, and some businesses have been forced to close. The Martinets of anti-smoke have quickly countered by stating “their” statistics have shown the opposite to be true. Of course what they again hide from the public is that they have padded their numbers with food and liquor sales that come from businesses that operate as “drive thru’s” or “carry out’s”. The anecdotal evidence of real businesses tells the sad truth of ruined enterprises and lives.

There is also a far darker dimension to the damage caused by smoking bans. In the past year since this tracking started, over 39 individuals have suffered beatings, robbery, rape, wounds from deadly weapons, and even death as a direct result from the fall out of smoking bans. I am talking about real people, with real addresses, and real families. I am talking about real people who chose to exercise their absolute right to use a legal product in a legal fashion. Is it any wonder that such actions occur when you have people like John Banzhaf, President of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), asserting on his web site that people should randomly lace packs of cigarettes with cyanide as a warning to all smokers. Clearly, if these bans continue on like a run-a-way train, many more lives will be damaged or lost.

Smoking ban proponents would equate such bans as being the same as laws that are passed to maintain kitchen sanitation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanitation issues in the kitchen are predicated on a clear cut understanding of how germs and bacteria can develop and the best methods of destroying them. In that the general public is not necessarily aware of many sanitary concerns they rely on the Board of Health through periodic inspections to determine that sanitation standards and procedures are maintained. Because of this the public feels secure that their health is being properly protected. Smoking and smoke do not create a health issue of which the public is unaware. Those who feel their health could be harmed by smoking do not have to patronize establishments where smoking is allowed. Conversely, those who look on the smoking issue as misguided do gooderism will continue going to their favorite restaurant or bar.

Many people claim they want smoking bans because the smell of smoke offends them. Quite honestly both smokers and non smokers can be of the same opinion. No one likes stale air of any kind. However with today’s modern air filtration systems stale air no longer has to be a problem. These systems will filter not only odors but also various particulates found in tobacco smoke. James Repace, the self anointed guru of second hand smoke stated, “Winds of 300-700 MPH are needed to blow second hand smoke away.” The fact that this statement is so outrageous, it is dumbfounding that any intelligent person would accept it as true. Yet it is an often quoted remark that has developed a life of its own. The fact still remains that modern filtration systems will reduce particulate levels to well below OSHA standards.

Many people argue that a state wide ban will “level the playing field”, in that those places that choose to be smoke free will be able to compete better in the marketplace if everyone is smoke free. This is just another piece of nonsense that falls apart under close scrutiny. There are already well over 70% of food service establishments that are smoke free and most of them do operate successfully. A smoking ban will not help them in the least. Since smokers do not patronize them now, they will not start to do so if a ban is enacted. Smokers will continue to go to their favorite places, but they will go less frequently, they will purchase less when they do go and they will also spend less time. This fact has been proven over and over again in areas where bans have already been established. The ultimate reduction of revenues will cost jobs, cause the actual closing of many businesses, and ultimately lower tax revenues for the state.

Of all the damage that is being caused by smoking bans, the worst is the damage being done to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution protects property rights above all other rights, yet we have state legislatures consistently passing smoking bans that violate this very right. In so doing, they also are trampling on our personal freedoms of choice and expression. As Ayn Rand put it, "The idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." Our legislators would tell you that this is a health issue that they are doing it for the benefit of our children, and that non-smokers have rights too. This sophomoric sophistry would be laughable were it not for the fact that these same arguments were used, with tragic consequences, almost 70 years ago in another country.

That country was Germany and the chief architects of their smoking ban was Chancellor Adolph Hitler and Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. In Hitler’s Mein Kampf he wrote, "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." In writing about the holocaust, Rabbi Daniel Lapin noted that Hitler believed “that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation…. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that (the) Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration.” Does “we have to do it for the children”, sound familiar? In promoting the smoking ban of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels made good use of his own idea that, “If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the new truth.” It was these two concepts that allowed the German government to forward their smoking ban and later, their far more infamous deeds of social engineering.

This quote from C.S. Lewis sums it up pretty well, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; his cupidity may at some point be satiated: but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

By:

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President
Minnesotans against Smoking Bans

Using the Constitution to Fight Bans

2005-01-11T03:12:00.000-06:00

Using the Constitution to fight the smoking bans
Plain Type equals the statement of the amendment
Italic Type equals the argument for the use of the specific amendment

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Smoking is a freedom of speech i.e. personal liberty. Such bans are tantamount to precluding peaceable assemblage in that those who may choose to smoke would have to separate themselves from the assembly.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Converting private property for public use refers to using property for the benefit of the population at large. To wit: condemning land for the use of building a municipal government center. The property owner will receive fair compensation.

If Government regulates the use of private property in such a way as will harm the profitability of a business located on said private property, or the fair market value of the property itself, and by such regulation declare or imply that said property is in fact public, it stands to reason that the government in the position of owing just compensation to the owner of said property.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In order to be compensated for business losses directly attributed to a smoking ban, business owners will have the right to demand a jury trial if such losses are in excess of $20.00

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Were a smoking ban to be enacted and said ban was violated by either the owner of a business or a customer of the business, such fines could be no more than a minimum fine imposed on any other minor infraction of the law. Further, any action taken by the enforcing body of the government can not be so excessive as to destroy the business itself. such action might be, but not limited to. Criminal prosecution, excessive fines, graduated fines, cancellation of food, liquor or other types of licenses or any other action that could be construed to be use of power to intimidate the private property owner or client or guest of said owner.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution is indeed of the people, by the people and for the people. The passage of any type of ban is a “bad faith” activity. Local and state governments that pass bans violate the spirit and the intent of the Constitution. Such bans further pits the general desires of a specific group of people against the rights of the private property owner and the clients of said property owner.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The rights’ of the people are always preeminent to the powers of the government.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A ban of any kind by its very definition is an abridgement of the privileges of the citizens. Bans create an inequality as they would relate to the protection of the laws.

Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

(The fact that this amendment was repealed I feel speaks to the fact that the government overstepped its bounds by ratifying an amendment that was unto itself patently unconstitutional.It further demonstrates how even as great as our Constitution is, it can still be held hostage when those who govern us lose sight of the true purpose of this document.)

Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

MN State Senator Ranum Gets All Her Facts Wrong

2005-01-10T16:45:00.000-06:00

This letter is in response to one sent by Barbara Gottstein. Her letter is below this one

MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 612-384-4374 FAX: 651-458-5649

January 10, 2005

Dear Senator Ranum,

An e-mail you sent to Barbara Gottstein has lately come to my attention. I am responding to it because I am seriously concerned about the information you used to formulate your opinion about voting for a smoking ban. Virtually every comment you made is false, misleading, based on junk science or predicated on computer generated statistics deliberately skewed to produce predetermined results. Knowing the extremes to which the “smoke hater” proponents will go to further their own agenda, I am providing you with an opposing viewpoint to counter their well know tactics. You absolutely need to know both sides of the issue in order truly formulate a position. To begin, you stated, “I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a workers’ rights issue.” I’m sorry Senator Ranum but neither workers nor the general pubic have any kind of a constitutional right to a smoke free environment if that environment is located on private property. Private property rights stand above all other rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

Your second piece of misinformation states, “Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average.” The World Health Organization, in the second largest study ever done on the topic Indicated the ill effects of SHS proved to be statistically insignificant. It is therefore obvious that it could not be one of the leading causes of deaths in Minnesota. As to the study concerning death rates of hospitality workers you should know was proven to be an out and out fraud. The study was computer generated and rigged to produce the desired outcome. These same kinds of studies were also used to generate information that caused you to state, “Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome.” These childhood conditions are related more genetics than SHS. The W.H.O. study by the way, shows that adult children from families where both parents smoked had a 22% better chance of NOT getting cancer than did adult children who came from non-smoking families.

Your statement that, “All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke,” Is just plain ridiculous. The exact same thing can be said about their exposure to carbon monoxide from auto emissions, exposure to the rays of the sun (a class A carcinogen), or arsenic found in our water supply. This list could go on and on, but the point has been made.

You made a further “statement of fact” that, “In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking.” True studies, not junk science, by reputable organizations have proven these concepts to be totally fallacious. Also association is not causation. Smoking and SHS have NEVER, I repeat NEVER, been found as a leading cause of any disease.

You stated, “Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).” BC/BS of Minnesota put forth this garbage initially. They are blatantly attempting to get themselves positioned, through the tobacco ban, as Minnesota’s primary insurance carrier. They are hoping to get tobacco taxes raised as well with the expectation of financially benefiting from said taxes.
Your final statement, “Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too,” is simply not true. Many of the bans already implemented, are now being modified extensively and in some cases are being completely overturned. I have refuted almost everything you have stated but I do not expect you to take my word for what I have said. The documented evidence of my allegations can be easily found at Forces.org. and/or the catoinstitute.com. I would urge you to study both these sites carefully. They have a wealth of information.

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans

Your Letter to Barbara Gottstein:

Dear Barbara,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on a statewide smoking ban. I appreciate hearing from you.

Reasonable people will differ on important issues. I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a worker’s rights issue. Thousands of employees are subjected to secondhand smoke at their workplace everyday. Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome. All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke.

In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking. Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).

Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too.

In addition, there are an increasing number of state legislators, both DFL and Republican who are open to a ban. The most important thing however, is that Minnesota does not interfere with other local units of government who already have bans in place.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Jane Ranum
State Senator

****Important message!*******
Do not hit "reply" to respond to this message. Instead,
click this address: "janer@senate.leg.state.mn.us"
This way, your message will come directly to me.

S.L.C.,UT Mayor's Insult to Smokers

2005-01-09T17:25:00.000-06:00

Animals in a Zoo?

I am surprised Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson didn’t refer to the smokers as swine in a pig sty. Isn’t that, after all one of the first images that comes to mind when you think of a pen. Before I am offended by “da mayor” I would have to be offended by the reference to the term smoking pens. In a city and state that was founded by a group of people so seriously reviled for their own beliefs in years past, you would think they would be among the first to take a “live and let live” attitude about the behavior and choices of others. Clearly the past lessons learned about intolerance by the Mormons must now have been forgotten.

Only 88 airports nationwide is hardly a mandate to make one’s own airport smoke free. Furthermore if these “smoking kiosks” are eliminated it will only cause people to find other places to smoke. Delta Airlines is correct in standing behind the rights of the smokers. Perhaps they have taken note that incidence of “air rage” only became prevalent AFTER smoking was banned on aircraft. It should also be noted that since the ban, they no longer use fresh air to ventilate the planes; instead, they just run the air through a filtrations system which in an enclosed environment further exacerbates the problem.

Mayor Anderson’s pompous arrogance in stating that the ban will help smokers to “break the habit” is outrageous. It is not his job to be neither a social engineer nor the arbiter of personal choices. I do know however, that as long as Salt Lake City and Utah continue down this Draconian path of heavy handed intolerance, I will avoid their state in very way possible. I will not travel to it, I will not travel thru it, and I will not support my company scheduling a convention there.

BANS ARE BAD! Read it again, BANS ARE BAD! Banning blacks from white facilities---BAD! Banning books---BAD! Banning Beer---Bad! If the people of Utah agree that these bans are bad, then they must also agree that banning smoking is also BAD! I would certainly hope at this juncture they are starting to realize that any action, that would favor a smoking ban of any type, will only create far more harm than good. IN all fairness I should note their may be one kind of good ban. That of course would be banning Mayor Anderson from further political office at the next election.

Sincerely,

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President
Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans

Travel: Smokers called "animals in a zoo"
Posted on Saturday, January 08 @ 10:39:22 EST by samantha

Utah Rocky is targeting smoking at airport

Those in cigarette pens set a bad example, he says

January 6, 2005
By Brady Snyder
Deseret Morning News

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson likens them to "animals in a zoo."
They're those smokers cordoned off in fishbowl-like cigarette pens at the Salt Lake City International Airport.
And Anderson thinks the time has come to end it.
As part of his aggressive anti-smoking agenda, Anderson says he's ready to dump the smoking pens and, in doing so, completely ban all indoor smoking at Salt Lake's airport.
"I've always been opposed to smoking in the airport," Anderson said. The smokers "look like animals in the zoo. They're setting a really bad example for everybody."
Total bans are in effect in at least 88 airports nationwide, according to a December report by the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Among those 88 are major ports like Los Angeles International, John F. Kennedy International in New York, Boise International, Orlando International, Portland International and many others.
"Airport managers are finding that ventilation is not an effective option in providing their employees and customers a healthier environment," Cynthia Hallett, executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, said in a statement. "The most effective and least costly way to protect all employees, patrons and travelers from exposure to secondhand smoke is a completely smoke-free environment."
Already Anderson is lobbying for statewide legislation that would ban smoking in all Utah taverns and private clubs — the only current nonresidential indoor locales in Utah where people can smoke besides the airport. Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-West Jordan, plans to present such a ban at the Legislature this year.
Anderson said he would like to see the airport included in such legislation. But he doesn't want airport smoking to become a sticking point that would hold up laws banning smoking in private clubs.
"It's a little tough for us to be telling bar and club owners that they have to ban smoking and yet we're not willing to do it at our own airport," Anderson said.
Such a ban would not come without a fight. Anderson's own Department of Airports executive director Tim Campbell opposes the idea, and Delta Air Lines, which accounts for roughly 80 percent of all the flights out of Salt Lake City, apparently does as well. Delta spokesman Anthony L. Black had no comment on the issue, but Campbell said, "The airlines support having the smoking rooms available."
Indoor smoking is convenient for many airline passengers who smoke, especially those traveling through hub airports like Salt Lake City, Campbell said.
Hubs have many stopover flights where passengers on a short layover can skate into smoking pens to have a quick cigarette and make it back in time for their connection.
"If you're a smoker and you have a 30-minute layover, you're out of luck," Councilman Dave Buhler told Anderson.
"It will help people break the habit," Anderson replied. "You always face opposition until you do it and then everybody looks back and thinks, 'Can you believe we used to allow smoking?' "
In Salt Lake City, Campbell noted, the airport gates are a good distance from outside doors, and if smokers did make the long haul outside they would have to come all the way back through security screening.
"Because we are a connecting hub, it's really not convenient or practical for people to go outside and smoke," he said.
The airport's current pens are set at negative pressure so smoke doesn't escape into the hallways. The rooms provide a good outlet for smokers, who are banned from smoking on commercial flights. If there were no smoking rooms, cigarette addicts would likely light up in corners or restrooms, Campbell said.
"The smoking rooms provide a convenient customer service that allows them to smoke and still protects the rest of the public from secondhand smoke."

Pinning Ears Back Of Pro Ban Lgislators.

2005-01-07T03:04:00.000-06:00

MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 612-384-4374 FAX: 651-458-5649

January 7, 2005

Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Minnesota House and Senate:

Those of you who are in favor of a smoking ban remind of such animals as ostriches, turtles, lemmings and even Chicken Little. You have for the past several weeks been receiving numerous articles e-mails and commentaries exposing the fallacious campaign of the anti-smoke hating Nazis. Some of you have withdrawn into a shell or buried you head in the sand, no doubt out of the fear that being exposed to an alternate point of view you might be forced you to re-evaluate your own misperceptions concerning SHS and smoking. Others of you in your solipsistic self-righteousness, are like “lemmings to the sea”, willing to destroy the very tax base you need to bail the state of Minnesota out of the miasma of its $700 million deficit. As to the issue of smoking and health, you all act like Chicken Little running around in a panic crying, “The sky is falling; the sky is falling!”

These sorts of behavior are insupportable. You have been elected to your positions by people who expect you to deal with the business of government and only that. They have not elected you to be Social Engineers, the dupes and lickspittles of special interest groups, nor the violators of our personal freedoms, private property rights, and Constitution of the United States of America. I have read where some of you have pontificated that we need these bans for the “sake of the children.” This is nothing more than sophomoric sophistry in its worst form and is based directly on the on the writings of Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf. "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." Hitler believed “that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation…. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that the Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration. If these words and this concept make you feel uncomfortable---good. You should feel uncomfortable knowing your actions in supporting a smoking ban have their genesis in the nightmare of the Third Reich.
BANS ARE BAD! Read it again, BANS ARE BAD! Banning blacks from white facilities---BAD! Banning books---BAD! Banning Beer---Bad! If you agree that these bans are bad, then you must also agree that banning smoking is also BAD! I would certainly hope at this juncture you are starting to realize that any action, that would favor a smoking ban of any type, will only create far more harm than good. The financial burden that will be forced on Minnesota by a smoking ban, will be crushingly enormous. This fact is already being recognized in New York State, Toledo, Ohio, Ireland, and Canada. Their bans are already beginning to crumble and debate has started to greatly modify and even in some cases repeal them.
Sincerely,

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President
Minnesotans’ Against Smoking Bans

Minnesota Gets Four F's for Poor Legislation

2005-01-06T17:33:00.000-06:00

MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 651-336-1275 FAX: 651-458-5649

January 6, 2005

Letter to the Editor:

Smoking Report Card for Minnesota

In “State earns poor grades in curbing smoking”, By Kate Kompas, We read Robert Moffitt is again spouting anti-smoking nonsense about the unproven evils of Second Hand Smoke and smoking in general. For too long people have been lied to and otherwise mislead by the likes of Mr. Moffitt. His comments that denigrate Tennessee and Kentucky are simply uncalled for. His statement that Minnesota has always prided itself for being a very healthy state and a progressive one too, will have no merit if these abhorrent smoking bans do get passed.

It has been proven with a mountain of anecdotal evidence that when bans occur, smoking among teens skyrocket, bootleg cigarettes become more widely available, and money that might otherwise be used for real health concerns will be used to enforce largely unenforceable bans. Any governmental body that passes laws that create bans, prohibitions, or otherwise restrictive legislation cannot be considered progressive, only reactionary.

Moffitt’s report card left some grades out. I was fortunate enough to get the full transcript for Minnesota. The grade, the subject, and the reason for the grade is as follows:

-“F” Economics Squandered and misused Master Settlement money paid by the tobacco industry.

-“F” Citizenship For passing current bans that are a clear constitutional violation of personal freedoms.

-“F” Government For passing and attempting to pass smoking bans that violate Private Property Rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

-“F” Ethics Allowing the use of known lies, half truths, misinformation, junk science, faulty statistics, and outside financial influence by organizations that look to profit financially from any smoking ban.

We all know what is done with 4-F’s in the Army. What do you think should be done with our politicians who earn a 4-F rating?

Submitted By,

Robert Hayes Halfpenny

Below is the column from the St.Cloud MN paper to which I was responding.
Minnesota continues to lag when it comes to anti-smoking laws and policies, according to a new report card from the American Lung Association.
That's despite the cities -- including Minneapolis and St. Paul -- that have passed smoking bans. Minnesota also received dismal grades last year.
"It's embarrassing to be ranked down there with the Tennessees and the Kentuckys of the world" in terms of laws restricting tobacco, said Robert Moffitt, spokesman for the Minnesota American Lung Association. "We've always prided ourselves on being a very healthy state and being very progressive."
Moffitt said Minnesota's tobacco grades can change if the state adopts a cigarette-tax increase and statewide smoking ban.
It's not a coincidence the state's report card is being publicized as the Legislature starts up. Lawmakers are expected to consider a statewide ban this year, which Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said he would sign.
Jodi Rohe, coordinator of Smoke Free Communities at Central Minnesota Heart Center, said the grades are no surprise, in part because the tobacco endowment that used to pay for anti-smoking programs was shifted to cover the state's budget shortfall.
The report card looks at the state as a whole, not individual cities or counties, Moffitt said.
Moffitt said he believes Minnesota is changing and will get better grades soon.
"I think most Minnesotans have really shifted their opinion on smoking and secondhand smoking," he said. "It's no longer just an annoyance to them. They see it as a health issue."
According to the report card, Minnesota scored:
- "D" in tobacco-program funding.
- "C" for its youth-access policies.
- "D" for its cigarette tax. The state's tax of 48 cents ranks 38th among the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
- "F" for smoke-free air.
Subscribe Today: Get home delivery for 50% off!

https://secure1.infi.net/stcloud/forms/
This is the URL

Letter to Sen. Dibble Grossly Misinformed Ban Sponser

2005-01-04T18:22:00.000-06:00

MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 612-384-4374 FAX: 651-458-5649

January 4, 2005

State Senator - District 60, Minneapolis
State Capitol, Room 111B
75 Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
651-296-4191, fax: 651-296-6511
sen.scott.dibble@senate.mn

Dear Senator Dibble:

The following letter to Barbara Gottstein has lately come to my attention. My response to this letter is a follows:

In that you are the chief author of this ban proposal and from the comments you have written, I am certain your research centered prominently on information and reports from the American Lung Association, National Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Stanton Glantz, James Repace, World Health Organization, and the E.P.A. Any information from this group would provide excellent reasons for promoting a smoking ban if you are willing to accept the half-truths, misinformation, lies, junk science, fallacious computer generated reports, and the promotion of a concept that is meant generate huge profits for the “legal” drug cartels that are funding smoking ban legislation.

Clearly, you have not bothered to research the W.H.O. report that stated there was no significant relationship of Second Hand Smoke to any health concern. This study, the second largest ever done, also stated that adult children from homes where both parents smoked had a 22% better chance of NOT, I repeat NOT, getting lung cancer than adult children who came from non smoking families. Evidently you have also chosen to ignore the fact that O.S.H.A. refuses to enact any regulation concerning smoking or SHS because their studies showed no measurable harm from either of these issues.

It is equally obvious you have not studied the anecdotal evidence showing the egregious harm done to businesses, preferring instead to accept computer generated surveys that were deliberately biased to produce results showing no harm to businesses. Not only did they mix apples and oranges to get these results, they absolutely pureed them. There is also anecdotal evidence showing rapes, beatings, robberies, and murders that can be laid directly at the feet of smoking bans that have already been passed.

Most importantly, you have not bothered to consult our United States Constitution for had you done so, you would realize that banning the use of any legal product on private property is patently unconstitutional. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” It must be understood that public access to private property does not make that property public.

You state that, “By banning smoking from bars and restaurants, every Minnesotan will have equal access and the guaranteed freedom to enjoy any establishment without having to jeopardize their health. It will also protect the health of the employees working in these businesses who are the most at risk to second hand smoke.” You further state, “There is also a long term economic benefit in regards to health care costs, as less people will be exposed to second hand smoke which can lead to many medical complications later in life.” Quite honestly, Senator Dibble, all this is nothing more than sophomoric sophistry, predicated on absolutely no reputable medical evidence. About the only thing you left out is that we need to support this ban for the sake of our children.

This ban you are proposing is nothing new. It was done with great success during the Third Reich of the Nazi Party. In fact, the language and many of the tactics used by the Nazis are EXACTLY the same as are being used today. This is also a well documented fact. I would urge you to visit the website, www.forces.org to get the full picture concerning this issue. You might also like to visit the catoinstitute.com to gain a better understanding of how such bans tear at the very fabric of our freedoms and democracy.

Sincerely,

Robert Hayes Halfpenny

Listed below are some quotes you might like to also consider:

“Revenues are down 25%. Members believe this is a result of smokers shortening their stay in restaurants. Restaurant bars--the profit makers--have been hardest hit. Some have been absolutely devastated. Restaurants have reported losses ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands [of dollars].”

(The Texas Comptroller’s Office said the second quarter of 2003, the first three months of the smoking ban restaurants selling alcohol reported the lowest revenue in recent years)

Tracy Evers, Greater Dallas Restaurant Association, Executive Director
______________________________________

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated: but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C.S. Lewis
______________________________________

The truth is usually pretty simple. It is lies that require webs of falsehood, propaganda, phony polls, and tortured statistics. Nietzsche once said that to differentiate truth from falsehood a good nose is required, because falsehood leaves a very bad smell.
The Philosopher Nietzsche:
______________________________________

"A people who will sacrifice freedom for safety are worthy of neither."

Benjamin Franklin
______________________________________

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
Pastor Niemoeller Revised for the 21st Century
“First they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Drinkers and the French fry lovers, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the people with “A Sweet Tooth”, but I did not have a sweet tooth so I did not speak out. And, when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Pastor Niemoeller to (1892-1984)
______________________________________
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."
As Rabbi Daniel Lapin has noted, Hitler believed “that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation…. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that (the) Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration.” Does “we have to do it for the children”, sound familiar?
Adolph Hitler from Mein Kampf
______________________________________

Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses. The threat of secondhand smoke has been greatly exaggerated. Claims that SHS cause as many as 65,000 early deaths in the US each year have been widely debunked as junk science. All studies failed to find second hand smoke to be a significant health risk.

Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2-02
______________________________________

The EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information…did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning and left significant questions without answers.

US District Court ruling against the EPA
______________________________________
Tell a lie long enough and it will become the new truth.

Dr. Joseph
______________________________________

YOUR LETTER TO BARBARA GOTTSTEIN

Dear Barbara,

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the proposal to ensure clean indoor air for everyone. As the chief author of the bill I have spent a lot of time examining the pros and cons of this legislation. Through careful consideration I have come to the belief that a smoking ban will be a good thing for the health of Minnesotans, as well as for Minnesota's economy.
By banning smoking from bars and restaurants, every Minnesotan will have equal access and the guaranteed freedom to enjoy any establishment without having to jeopardize their health. It will also protect the health of the employees working in these businesses who are the most at risk to second hand smoke.
The gloomy forecasts of those who believe a smoking ban will carry a negative economic effect are incorrect. Similar bands in New York and California have not produced a decrease in the businesses of bars and restaurants. It has been the case that some bars and restaurants have experienced increased business as the smoke free environment creates a more inviting atmosphere to health conscious customers who have stayed away.
There is also a long term economic benefit in regards to health care costs, as less people will be exposed to second hand smoke which can lead to many medical complications later in life.
I again thank you for sharing your views and I hope that I was able to answer your question.
Sincerely,
Scott

2004-11-30T00:50:00.000-06:00

Commentary About a Level Playing Field

The latest hue and cry concerning the smoking ban is for the State Legislature to make the ban state wide and therefore make the playing field level. The smoke-hater Nazis would have you believe that such a plan would prevent individual businesses from suffering any economic losses. Over 80 years ago the Communists called for the redistribution of wealth in order to “make the playing field even.” However instead of spreading the wealth the Bolsheviks and Communists simply manifested poverty across the landscape of the Soviet Union.

Today, this same scenario, albeit only a microcosm of what happened in the U.S.S.R., is again being played out with the smoke-hater Nazis now taking the part of the Communists and the poor restaurant/bar operators being treated like the “wealthy” land owners of Imperial Russia. Then as now, the “level playing field” will not spread the wealth, it will only lead to the financial damage and ruin of those operators whose customer base is made up of significant numbers of smokers. The smoke-hater Nazis and the vast majority of legislators have absolutely no comprehension of how the food and bar business works. As such, they also lack any cognitive understanding of the desires of the public who are customers at the various smoking establishments. These Minions of the Minority also lack any cognitive understanding of the financial basics of the restaurant/bar business.

Having spent better than 40 years in the hospitality industry I can speak as both a professional and with the voice of authority on any issue that affects various restaurant and bar enterprises. It is an absolute fact that smokers will dine out less. When they do dine out they will spend less. They will forego an extra before or after dinner drink, they will forego after dinner coffee or dessert, they may even forego an appetizer. When the customer does drop one or more of the “extras”, the guest check will be reduced by a figure that can run from $1.25 for the cheapest extra, to a whopping $32.55 if a guest chose not to buy all the possible extras. These figures have the potential of being multiplied by the number of people at the table.

The smoke-hater Nazis will pontificate that no matter what the financial loss might be, it is still more important to protect the health of the employees and customers of these establishments. The half truths, lies, misinformation, and junk science being foisted off on an unsuspecting public by these Disciples of Doom, is being repudiated with ever increasing regularity by highly respected medical professionals and institutions. It is the absolute duty and responsibility of every politician who may be involved in the passage or rejection of a smoking ban to become totally informed on the topic. Many of you with whom I have corresponded have already expressed the intention of voting against the smoking ban. Those of you who are adamant in your support of the ban and that support is based on faulty knowledge should make every effort to get properly informed. Failure to do so can mean only one of two things. At best, you are like ostriches with your buried in the sand---at worst, you are suffering from an acute, if not fatal, case of cranial-rectal immersion.

In conclusion, I feel compelled to remind many of you that we have a Constitution in Washington D.C. that guarantees us our right to freedom of choice. It also guarantees us our private property rights. Catering to the public does not convert private property into public property. Always remember, “The government that governs least, governs best.” The following is a link to actual financial damage caused by bans already enacted. http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm Please copy and paste into your browser.

Sincerely,

Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Bob3443@aol.com

The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking

2004-10-31T00:25:00.000-05:00

The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking
By
Robert Hayes Halfpenny

For far too long people and organizations such as Dr. James Repace (self anointed SHS expert), John Banzhaf, the World Health Organization, the Environmental Protection Administration, A.S.H., and the Heart, Lung and Cancer organizations have gotten away with telling us lies. For far too long, people have believed them. When you read the debunking of these lies, remember there are even more important issues at stake than the issue of smoking. I refer to personal property rights, freedom of choice, and the right to live your life as you choose, without outside interference. Their worst lies are listed below. The truth about these lies has been well documented through various sources. Surprisingly some of these sources were the very groups that are listed above. Remember, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister for Hitler’s Third Reich, said, “If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the new truth”.

• THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.

THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.

The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H.O. attempted to hide these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.

• THE LIE: The desire for smoking bans is a grass roots movement.

THE TRUTH: Smoking bans have almost exclusively been started by organizations such as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, A.S.H., the Heart, Cancer, and Lung Organizations and major pharmaceutical corporations. Over one billion dollars, from the Master Tobacco Settlement has funded the activities of many of these organizations for the past 5 years. Promoting smoking bans is big business for these organizations, especially the drug companies who are reaping huge profits on their almost worthless smoking cessation products.

When all sources of money are added together, nearly $1,500,000,000.00 have been squandered in bring about smoking bans in about 155 municipalities across the nation. The average money spent on each of these municipalities equates to about $9,675,000.00 per location. In simpler terms it will take Jerry Lewis’s Muscular Dystrophy Telethon 30 years to collect the same sum of money at the rate of $50,000,000.00 per Telethon. When a properly informed public is given the opportunity to vote on a smoking ban issue, they invariably will vote the ban down. This has already happened on numerous occasions and it is expected to occur in New York City by 2005.

• THE LIE: Second Hand Smoke is a public health issue.

THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above), SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars.

This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments’ sole responsibility to see to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment. This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

• THE LIE: Smoking bans are good for business.

THE TRUTH: Of all the nonsense put forth by the smoke haters this concept is nearly the most ridiculous. There was no basis in fact for this idea when originally stated. Now that the financial results of the bans are being felt in many different cities it is becoming painfully obvious that many businesses are being irreparably harmed. Many of the smoke haters who not only are experts on SHS would also have you believe they are experts in the field of accounting. They will site tax records and other data to prove the business of bars and restaurants are up since the bans were imposed. Their numbers however are egregiously manipulated and include figures from establishments that normally wouldn’t be part of such a survey.

The fact of the matter is the anecdotal evidence is far more realistic. There is a hardly a restaurant or bar that hasn’t been adversely affected by these bans. Business has dropped off from between 20% and 50%. Many businesses have been forced to close. Jobs have been lost, a life time of work in building a business has been lost, and city tax revenues have been adversely affected.

• THE LIE: Restaurants and bars are public businesses.

THE TRUTH: All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have! The fact that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we can not afford to have in this country.

When a small group of people attempt to force their own jaundiced views on the citizenry it is called an Oligarchy. Our elected officials are our SERVANTS! They are in office for only one purpose and that is to see to the needs of all the people Henry David Thoreau said in the 19th century, “the government that governs best, governs least”. He was right then---he is right today!

• THE LIE: Technology does not work

THE TRUTH: Dr. James Repace, the self appointed expert on second hand smoke, once stated to the effect that a 300 mile per hour hurricane couldn’t clear out the danger of SHS in an enclosed space. In Atlanta, Georgia there is an organization that deals with some of the most dangerous infectious germs and bacteria in the World. Out of very obvious necessity, the filtration system they use must be 100% effective, 100% of the time. The system they use (which does contain several built in redundancies) is not out of “Buck Rogers” but one that is very similar to the type of commercial systems most restaurants or bars use.

Several St. Louis Park food service establishments had their air tested by an independent organization. The results of these tests showed favorable results and the overall effectiveness of properly maintained filtrations systems. If Atlanta, Georgia can have an organization that deals with Anthrax, Small Pox, Bubonic Plague and other organisms that could kill people by the 100’s of thousands with no fear of exposure, common sense dictates that similar filtrations systems should work on the relatively benign particulates of SHS.

• THE LIE: 3000 lives a year are lost due to SHS.

THE TRUTH: Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their “test”. The “test” is in fact not a test, but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation. The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal Judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public. Judge Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. Judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as to this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned Judge’s Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons. THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate Judge Osteen’s basic premise concerning his comments about the E.P.A. or their motives.

• THE LIE: Most people approve and support smoking bans.

THE TRUTH: most people who do not smoke really don’t care one way or the other about the smoking issue. It is only a very small but well funded group of smoke haters who want to see these ban invoked. When these bans are ultimately passed and the true effect of them is fully realized, then people start to speak out against them. In New York a poll was taken to see how the people felt about the ban. 86% of those polled stated the ban went way too far. At this point in time there is reason to expect the New York may be rescinded in part or in full sometime in 2005.

Canada, one of the most strident nations in attempting to enforce a smoking ban nationwide, is currently facing wide spread rebellion against their Draconian measures. The reports of businesses being financially ruined run rampant. Politicians who supported the bans are being voted out of office. Cigarettes, which are now literally worth their weight in sterling silver,
are being stolen with increasing regularity and then sold on the black market. These very same actions will and indeed are occurring in the United States as well. If the bans were truly supported would such occurrences happen?

• THE LIE: Smokers and smoking impose a heavy cost on society.

THE TRUTH: Of all the lies told by the anti smoke haters this one has to be the most ludicrous. For example, if smoking kills people well before their time, the saving of Social Security and Medicare benefits would be significant. The extra medical costs to the “State” are more than exceeded by the outrageous taxes currently paid by smokers. Contrary to reports that smokers miss more work time than non-smokers is a completely unsubstantiated number. Indeed, there are so many variables as to why people miss work, it would be impossible to determine whether smoking was a significant cause or not.

Furthermore, it has been a policy of long standing that insurance companies assess smokers a higher rate for insurance premiums. This has been done in spite of a lack of any definitive proof that smokers, because of smoking, contribute to higher medical costs. It is astounding that an otherwise healthy person who watches his weight, exercises, eats a healthy diet, and drinks only in moderation if at all, has to pay a higher insurance premium than an obese person who eats and drinks to excess and doesn’t know the meaning of the word exercise, but does not smoke.

• THE LIE: Smoking statistics do not lie.

THE TRUTH: In this World there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Never has an argument been won based on statistic alone. They can serve only as a point of departure. In a free and open society people must be allowed to operate as free agents without the fetters of the doomsayers. Life is a risk, but it is that risk which gives it zest. When we allow ourselves to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety, we deserve neither safety nor freedom. Accepting statistics at face value will lead us down that garden path. There are many statistics that can be sited that make the danger of smoking seem mild by comparison.

For example, the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that SHS. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke. The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D.D are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette.

How to Fight the Smoking Ban in Minnesota

2004-07-26T23:57:00.000-05:00

HOW TO FIGHT THE SMOKING BAN IN MINNESOTA AND OTHER STATES

(I know this may be a little long but it concerns something far more important than just the issue of Smokers' Rights. It is about our Property Rights and our individual freedom of choice. If you like it, please pass it on to other of your friends and even to your political representatives. If you are a political representative please take heed. Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were created by the greatest minds of the 18th century---they should not be destroyed by the little minds of the 21st century.)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated: but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis

Get the true facts out about second hand smoke!!

The EPA claimed that 53000 people died every year from SHS. This number was made up by them OUT OF THIN AIR before they ever ran their Meta survey. Their survey indicated that only 3000 people might have been affected by SHS but there was no absolute proof. They published this figure anyway. When they were ultimately sued for publishing false information which hurt the LEGAL activities of the tobacco industry, a Federal court ruled they were guilty of publishing false and misleading information.

The World Health Organization (WHO) ran one of the largest surveys ever done on second hand smoke. They attempted to hide their results when they found out that SHS had virtually no measurable ill effects on anyone. One fact they did discover was that adult children from families where both parents smoked had a 28% better chance of NOT GETTING LUNG CANCER than did adult children who came from non-smoking homes.

There are three groups of people in our society. They are Smokers, Non-Smokers, and Anti-smokers. Anti-Smokers ARE a very small but vocal and well funded group of malcontents who feel it is their God given right to control the legal activities of others for no reason other than they dislike the smell of smoke. This funding comes in large part from the Robert Wood Johnson Trust which derives its millions of dollars from stock in the Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Corporation. It is interesting to note that Johnson and Johnson is the maker of Nicorette and other stop smoking products. (which by the way DON”T work).

The ORGAN ORGANIZATIONS i.e. heart, lung, liver, cancer etc. hereafter known as the OO’s, petitioned the state of Washington to not invoke a state wide ban. The reason why, is that were such a ban to be put in place, the OO’s job would be done AND the lavish Federal Funding they currently receive WOULD BE CUT!! This utter lack of integrity and immorality on the part of the OO’s is unconscionable!!! Their position in the State of Minnesota will be the same should someone propose such a ban.

If you question the above statements you can find the documentation and references at Forces.org. By all means verify these facts for yourself and get a lot more information as well. Your blood will really boil at the infamies being perpetrated on the American Public and not just about the smoking issue.

What You the Smoker Can Do!

There are many things you can do to fight this ban. To start with, write to the City Councils in St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Bloomington to let them know your displeasure of their actions. Also, let them know that you WILL oppose their reelection, irrespective of their party affiliation.
Ask your friends both smoking and non-smoking to do the same. Remember there is far more at stake here than just the issue of smoking. Our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms are being assaulted. You should also contact your state legislative representative as to you feelings as well.

STOP buying your cigarettes in those cities that are imposing the ban and start doing it now, even before the ban goes into effect!!! Stop buying cigarettes in Minnesota if at all possible. Those of you who live near casinos can get them there. Those of you who live near bordering states can get them there. And, those of you who have a computer can go on line and buy them there. I have seen some brands going as low as $8.99 a carton plus $1.50 shipping fee. I have smoked some of those brands and they are pretty decent. Just think if you buy two cartons a week at a typical price of $26.97 per carton including tax, or $53.94 for two, by buying on line, two cartons will cost you only 20.98 including shipping. Every week you would save $32.96 or $1713.92 over a year’s time. Most import it would be money you could fritter away as you choose as opposed to the state frittering it away for you.

Above all, support the restaurants and bars that allow you to smoke. Let them know that you are on their side. At this point in time you should probably let non-smoking restaurants that you may frequent know that until this issue is resolved you have to support the restaurants and bars where smoking is allowed.

Remember too, you do have a certain sphere of influence---use it. All this really means is that you guide your friends and relations to those places that have smoking and non-smoking sections.

Don’t Don’t Don’t make charitable contributions to any of the OO’s or any other organization that supports smoking bans. All you are really doing is giving them money to further their anti-smoking campaign against you. Having less money would in effect make it necessary for them to donate all their funds to finding cures of the illnesses they historically have been trying to conquer.

Start demanding that the state legislatures cancel the outrageous settlements imposed on big tobacco. The settlement has amounted to nothing more that Grand Larceny perpetrated not against the tobacco companies, but against we the smokers. This money has gone to line the pockets of attorneys who are so bereft of any sense of integrity and lack any concept of a moral compass that they should be disbarred. It has also been squandered by such organizations as MPAAT who completely misused the funds. Worst of all, this money has been used to balance state government budgets with the expectation the smokers will bare additional budget deficits through higher cigarette taxes.

What the Bar and Restaurant Owners can do!

Certainly those people hardest hit will be you owners. In every city and state in the USA and in every European country there are countless stories of restaurants and bars (hereafter known as R&B’s) that have suffered insurmountable losses of business. Contrary to the pontificating of the anti-smoke Nazis, R&B’s are indeed losing significant sums of business, employees are being laid off in ever increasing numbers, and these laws are becoming increasingly Draconian in their nature. There is little you can do if you stand alone, BUT, if you join hands with your fellow restaurateurs, you can become a formidable force to be reckoned with. Whether you do this by city or the three cities (St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Bloomington) join hands is up to you I personally think the three cities would carry significantly more clout. There is a simple three pronged attack you can make against the OO’s, City Councils and against the State Legislature.

Let it be known that the OO’s will receive no further donations of food, cash, or services as long as they openly or privately support these smoking bans or put out false information concerning second hand smoke. Remember their activities are reducing your revenues---why in God’s name would you even want to support an organization (no matter how good their main purpose might be) that is taking the bread out of your mouths.

Defy the ban if and wherever possible. In other words become a private club, provide your patrons with non-tobacco cigarettes to smoke. Inform your patrons of the law and have them sign papers to the effect that you did. If they then choose to smoke, you have done your job of informing them. The state can not expect you to act in the roll of a policeman, so let the police handle the legal issues. Become a non-profit organization and claim special status. Be as much of a “fly in the ointment” as you can possibly be to the various city and state governments.

GO ON STRIKE!!! Basically these bans in Minnesota won’t go into effect until March of 2005. That being the case, all of you restaurateurs and bar owners will have several months to get ready for this joint effort. It will really be in the best interests for both smoking and non-smoking establishments to work together. When the government understands that you will not allow your businesses be ruined by these egregiously unfair laws, when they realize the taxes your businesses generate for the public weal is a truly significant sum of money, and when they realize the significant number of jobs you provide to individuals who might otherwise be on unemployment, or public assistance, or any other welfare program, they may come to the realization they have gone too far, in fact, way way way too far.

What Happens if this Ban Becomes the Law of the Land

It is irrefutable fact that as these smoking bans take place across the country, our rights as citizens of the USA are being violated and even decimated. I am not speaking of smoker’s rights or non-smokers rights. I am speaking of the rights of ALL American citizens. It is our greatest fault as Americans that we take our rights far too lightly. All too often we take the position that as long as it isn’t us that are being affected by specific legislation, why should we care. The reason we should care is such legislation often lays the groundwork for future legislation that may eventually affect us very much.

You may say today that it’s O.K. to ban smoking because you don’t smoke and you don’t really care one way or the other. That’s great! But, what happens when you find out that you have become the target of the “Fat Nazis”. Let’s say you weigh about 201, are 5’ 10”, look pretty trim and do work out. Well guess what---you are now among the many obese Americans. Not to worry though, Tom Cruise is also in your company. It will be pointed out that you no doubt have been victimized by the big food chains who virtually crammed Dunkin’ Donuts, Big Macs, Arby Curley Fries, and Taco Bell Tacos down your unwilling gullet. It wasn’t your fault that you got fat, it was theirs. They must be punished---so SUE them!!! They must correct their evil ways---so LEGISLATE them!!! They must makes acts of contrition---so SHAME them into funding such projects that the Fat Nazis feel will further their own agenda!!!

Are you all starting to get the point yet? I am not describing things that might happen tomorrow but rather things that are happening right now. The reason why they are happening is because the Fat Nazis are using the same tactics that the Smoke Nazis have been using for the past 30 to 40 years. Eventually, you will find your favorite Burger Emporium will be featuring tofu and/or veggie burgers in place of your favorite all beef (?) Double Decker Belly Buster. You may still be able to get the Belly Buster but probably at an inflated price. Your beloved French Fries will in all likelihood be baked or “Hot Air” roasted and then flavored with some “marvie” salt substitute. How about a nice chocolate shake---made with lo-fat milk, lo-fat ice cream or maybe even soy milk? Doesn’t that sound Yummy?

Now you may think I am trying to gild the lily, but these are already ideas that are being discussed. The bottom line for you the consumer is that the cost of eating out WILL go up, the quality and menu choices WILL go down, and you WILL be bombarded by pharmaceutical companies trying to sell you medical drugs that will help you to lose weight or control your appetite. If all this sounds vaguely familiar, simply apply all points listed here to what has already happened to tobacco. Now that you have done that start thinking how the agendas of the Smoke Nazis and the Fat Nazis might apply to the liquor industry, the beef industry, and even the automobile industry. Are things starting to get scary??? I hope so!!!

It is imperative that all Americans, Smokers and Non Smokers alike fight against these smoking bans. You must understand that by and large they are based on faulty or junk science; the organizations pushing them are being funded by major pharmaceutical companies whose primary interest is to push their own anti-smoking drugs; the bans themselves are ill-conceived, are in violation of free trade, violate basic property rights, and in all likelihood are absolutely unconstitutional.

By
Bob Halfpenny
Bob3443@aol.com